backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by bobbybarber.. on Mar 8 at 7:16 PM
But now evidence is no longer available and in custody of the Justice Department

Last July, U.S. President Bush blocked an internal investigation into the National Security Agency's (NSA) wire tapping program. The block by Bush resulted in a flurry of controversy and according to experts, made the NSA's program questionable in the eyes of citizens.

Now, a Washington D.C. attorney named Wendell Belew is suing the U.S. government for wiretapping without a warrant, and he has the evidence to prove it. Wendell received a "top-secret" report from fellow al-Haramain attorney Lynne Bernabei, which was retrieved from the Treasury Department's Washington D.C. headquarters.

After reviewing the documents, Belew was astonished to see that his phone calls to co-counsel Asim Ghafoor and a Saudi-based charity official named Soliman al-Buthi were all logged and detailed. After some time, the FBI showed up at Belew's door, demanding that he return the documents, which by this time had already been copied and given to Washington Post reported David Ottaway.

Lawyers representing Belew and Al-Haramain are now seeking damages of $1 million for each person for illegal wiretapping by the NSA. Interestingly, Dean Boyd, a representative for the government wrote "the government has never confirmed or denied whether plaintiffs were surveilled, much less surveilled under the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Out of all previous court cases against illegal spying, Belew's case may blow the doors open for more cases because he actually has official evidence. Interestingly, after Belew and his lawyers filed their cases, the official documents were taken out of the courthouse and into a Justice Department-controlled secure room. Now, Belew's lawyers are no longer allowed to see those documents and are only allowed to file declarations based on their memory of the contents.

Last year the NSA and AT&T were accused to illegally wiretapping major internet and phone routers after PDF documents revealed that alleged of NSA wiretapping without having proper warrants.  The source of this latest wiretapping incident is unknown, though the evidence suggests the AT&T wiretap had the same capabilities as the one suggested by Belew.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Checks and Balances
By dreddly on 3/6/2007 11:13:07 AM , Rating: 5
What is the point of having a system based on checks and balances if one branch can declare issues of national security and override the press, individual freedom and the rule of law?

What is national security protecting when it directly contradicts with the 'way of life' that it is safeguarding?




RE: Checks and Balances
By fic2 on 3/6/2007 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 4
Excellent. But, your phones and email are probably now being tapped because you disagree with our benevolent dictator.


RE: Checks and Balances
By Rollomite on 3/6/2007 11:35:37 AM , Rating: 1
Let's hear it for the Patriot Act!!! Who needs rights anyway? <<sarcasm>>

Rollo


RE: Checks and Balances
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/2007 3:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
patriot act is an act done by non-patriots who did not serve this country as a patriot nor do they care about patriotism.

Spock: "Fascinating"


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 3
"What is the point of having a system based on checks and balances if one branch can declare issues of national security and override the press, individual freedom and the rule of law?"

Override the press? The press is not part of our government, nor would they ever want to be. The "press" in this country has gone from a system that pursues actual relevant news and reports it in an unbiased manner for the sake of news, to corporations that use the news to drive ratings. Personally, I'm so fed up with the "news" agencies in this country that anything the Gov. can do to cut them out I'm all for. When the "news" agencies actually start reporting both sides of the news, in an unbiased way, then maybe they'll be worth considering again.

"What is national security protecting when it directly contradicts with the 'way of life' that it is safeguarding?"

No 'way of life' was contradicted with the wiretapping. Until the irresponsible news organization that reported on it blabbed to the whole world "Look terrorists, we're doing this now too! Now you can even be more careful trying to kill us!", everyone was going about in their carefree American happy dumb ways, including the people being wiretapped.

Lets keep it real here...the govenment could wiretap all of us and we'd never know the difference. I'm not exactly fond of someone not me or my intended receiver having access to my communications, but if it's so massively important to national security that the NSA know that I think the girl who works at the local Quizno's is hot, then I guess I'll have to "sacrifice" my liberties and let them find out about it.

People are blowing stuff like this way out of proportion...

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 3
Well said. Do some of you people honestly believe the government has the time and resources to go around just tapping anyone and everyones phone and internet connection? They find people they believe to possibly be involved in something, and check them out. If nothing is out of the ordinary, they move on. As is obviously the case with this attorney since they never called him in for questioning.

I personally have no problems with the government monitoring anyone they feel they need to. They're not getting information on people and publicly defaming them or anything. I'm someone who's met the power of big brother with a gun pointed at me and still find it ok. You people need to get a grip on reality and stop crying foul anytime something is done you don't like. Because the fact is that if they didn't do this kind of thing, and another 9/11 did happen, you'd blame Bush and the government for not doing enough. So personally, I'd rather them do it and laugh at you people instead of having an even more increased chance of something like 9/11 happening again.

Personally I think that the person who removed those documents from a government building should be thrown in jail for theft of confidential government documents.

And media. SHUT UP! You don't seem to get that all these news stories you do does nothing but inform terrorists more on what we're doing to stop them or give them ideas on what to do and how to do it.

"Tonight at 9. We show you how to build a bomb big enough to destroy a city with chemicals under the sink. Potential terrorists, get out your note pads."

or

"Tonight at 11. We show you how many men is needed to take over a nuclear power plant. The guards are located here, here, and here. Their shifts changes are at these times. Please don't use any of this info to actually try and take over a power plant."


RE: Checks and Balances
By wrekd on 3/6/2007 1:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not with why the government is doing this.

The problem is when (if at all) do they stop. The problem is the precedence it sets.

The more this is done, the easier it becomes. So all the terrorists are dead...will the government give up this power? Or will they next turn to finding child molesters, drug dealers or political idealists? Give the government an inch and they will take much more when it suits their needs.

I mentioned molesters earlier because of a TG Daily article I read recently.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/03/02/child_porn_email...

This also could be abused. I could pay some hack to send some child porn to "mine enemies" and watch as their lives are turned upside-down. The allegations alone would ruin someone. Not to mention the court costs and heartache.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
For the example you just mentioned I can truthfully say that this is not true. I have a unique perspective with that exact issue (not something that happened to me directly though). True if it were to happen to someone far more important than to the person I knew, it might be different since the media (like everything) would blow it out of proportion even once proved false.

When it comes to child porn, they're more looking for you actively seeking it. If it shows up in your spam email folder out of the blue, thats not flagged as you look at it. They're going to go after the guy that sent it. Now if it starts showing up all the time, then they probably will look into it.

And news from Los Angeles means less to me than used toilet paper.


RE: Checks and Balances
By Oregonian2 on 3/6/2007 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well said. Do some of you people honestly believe the government has the time and resources to go around just tapping anyone and everyones phone and internet connection? They find people they believe to possibly be involved in something, and check them out. If nothing is out of the ordinary, they move on. As is obviously the case with this attorney since they never called him in for questioning.


That's not the problem. Wire-taps are fine when justified. Problem is that there are procedures in place to keep those with the power to wiretap from becoming corrupt and wiretapping for political purposes, or to check up on one's girlfriend, etc. Power corrupts. The procedures in place allow for wiretaps but to have some accountability to cut down on corruption. That's why the power to do wiretaps ad-hoc whenever some agency wants to isn't something that can be permitted. May do it for good reasons now, but once they have unconstrained power, it'll go bad. Guaranteed if people are involved.


RE: Checks and Balances
By THEiNTERNETS on 3/6/2007 12:54:51 PM , Rating: 4
As much as I agree with you (which is actually quite a lot), the reality is that it doesn't matter that illegal wiretapping doesn't actually effect our day-to-day lives--the reason people are up-in-arms about it is because it has the potential to be abused by the government to hurt people. The whole idea of forcing judicial oversight onto programs like these is so that people can't use wiretapping for political purposes. This isn't so far-fetched, look at the article DT has on China today. They are a direct result of a government who doesn't believe in the freedom of press/free expression.

I guess what I'm wondering is why we can't have the NSA tracking terrorists without it being done within legal bounds--considering the administration has changed the way the wiretapping works to do just that, they may actually agree with me. This whole article is really just pointing out how the guise of "National Security" can be used to stonewall the press from publishing anything particularly damaging to the administration.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 1:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Even if its done within "legal bounds" there still exists the same potential for abuse.


RE: Checks and Balances
By derwin on 3/6/2007 1:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
The potential for abuse is never removed, but when a judge signs off on a wire tap, its less likely that he signed off on a wire tap for the democratic headquarters at watergate hotel. When the discression is entierly up to the executive branch, well, you know what has happened before.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 3:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
The "potential for abuse" I was talking about is for wiretaps that are for personal or political gains. Those kinds of wiretaps would be done by someone without a judges signature even if one was required. So those kind of wiretaps will happen regardless of the procedures in place.

I'd rather the process for the NSA, FBI, or CIA to get a tap on someone be extremely quick so they can monitor people before they've potentially done something rather than after. Throwing a judge into it will make it possibly take days rather than hours. In those guys business, more time to be able to do their jobs means a higher potential body count. Also it frees them to quickly check on someone and move on to the next one if they find no foul play.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 2:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't so far-fetched, look at the article DT has on China today. They are a direct result of a government who doesn't believe in the freedom of press/free expression.


This is a completely different issue though. At no point in the NSA wiretapping did the US federal government say too those it was looking into, "Hey, we don't like what you're saying. You are forbidden to say that anymore."...and then apply it to 1.8 million or whoever else people. The NSA wiretapping was looking into people suspected as terrorist, or communicating with terrorists, so as to protect us (I'm in the US) from people trying to kill us. China is censoring people just because it wants to control the public aspect of peoples lives...essentially they want to be god.

quote:
I guess what I'm wondering is why we can't have the NSA tracking terrorists without it being done within legal bounds


Because maybe the legal bounds are still to restrictive? Maybe they don't work fast enough? Maybe the people it has to go through simply cannot be trusted with sensitive national information - gee, how'd this leak again???

quote:
. This whole article is really just pointing out how the guise of "National Security" can be used to stonewall the press from publishing anything particularly damaging to the administration


This article points out that they should find who leaked the info to the press that got started looking into this, and jail them for life...along with removing that news organization from the list of invited news outlets to White House and State Dept. functions. I can understand al-Jezeera (or however it's spelled) publishing that info...how an American news outlet could publish it, knowing it'd blow a sensitive operation open, it's basically treasoness. We have people out in the field that are basically hanging out there risking it all everyday, and then some reporter - for ratings and so they could feel special - pushes out how we're spying on people trying to kill us. Just amazing when you think about it...

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By Fritzr on 3/6/2007 10:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As much as I agree with you (which is actually quite a lot), the reality is that it doesn't matter that illegal wiretapping doesn't actually effect our day-to-day lives


3 words -- Senator Joseph McCarthey


RE: Checks and Balances
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/2007 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
the government is a person that is not above the law. The executive branch is one person, the President. This president is considered one person under the law similar to a corporation but more ethically held to the highest spirit of the law. The president is not a member of the armed services or security groups. He is so because he is to be a citizen at all times. This citizen is in charge of the military and all military-like functions. The people of the military as well as the personage of the military as a unified being has less rights and is lower in class than the citizens of the country. The justice departments, NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc., are all arms of the President himself. In no manner is the president or his groups allowed to operate outside of the law that is held to citizens or outside the specific parameters of the Constitution.

You, as a citizen are only allowed to tap your own phone if you yourself are one of the two parties who are involved in the conversation. Court orders must be used for all citizens and service people of this country in order to tape and listen to conversations in a third party manner.

I dont want to hear any of this bullshit about "sacrifice" or "they have the right" or "times of war". These lawsuits will be filed and they will win, hopefully. George W. Bush, the puppet/figurehead of twisted egotists and money hungry pigs, has brainwashed the public into assuming that wartime ='s no definition of citizen rights. If Clinton did these things, he would have been impeached and then arrested, tried and jailed. Figureheads do not get any heat though as they are dupes for those who make sure everything goes well without a fault.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 4:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
You know, until your last paragraph, you sounded very sane...then it just all fell apart.

It's really possible, in fact probable, that had Clinton not been getting head in the Oval Office, and instead been doing his job, that 9/11 would have never happened, and Bush wouldn't have to result to such measures so we can play catch up to the terrorists.

The single biggest threat to national security is not illegal wiretaps, sloppy border security, or even lax airport security: It's people like you who do not understand that the nut jobs are going to stop at nothing to harm us, to them it's an honor to kill us.

When are you and people like you going to start waking up and realizing that having each and every right as you had it pre-9/11 may not be possible in this day and age, just like carrying around a six-shooter strapped to your leg in the Wild West was totally acceptable and is not now?

I love how you spout off about no civilian rights when everything you did in your life pre-9/11 you can still do now...the War on Terror as it's been termed has caused the average citizen to wait in line at the airport a little longer...that's about it.

What can you not do now that you couldn't before, except carry liguids onto planes?

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By NaughtyGeek on 3/6/2007 5:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

If you don't get the meaning behind the above statement, then it's easy to see why you will defend these actions. As for everyone who says "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," that's the same mentality that empowered and emboldened Hitler to conquer most of Europe before anyone finally said enough. Just because it doesn't affect you today doesn't mean it won't tomorrow.

When they came for the terrorists, I did not speak out;
I was not a terrorist.

"When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Martin Niemöller


RE: Checks and Balances
By Hare on 3/6/2007 5:41:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin


Except that he didn't say that.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." any variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin.

This was on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin


RE: Checks and Balances
By NaughtyGeek on 3/6/2007 5:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, now that you point that out it seems I've read it before. The quote wasn't used to glorify or embellish on Franklin's achievements, it was made to illustrate a point. Thanks for setting that straight though.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 6:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
Hare supplied the correct quote, I won't do it again.

The key words there are "Essential Liberty". No one has revoked your essential liberties, and even if they did look into your personal communications - which you'd never know - you'd still have them. Again, you are getting far too carried away. The NSA isn't giving millions of wiretaps to the FBI and then the FBI is busting down millions of doors, kicking your kids screaming out of bed, and going through your wifes panty drawer. Again, please, keep it real here. The overworked personnel and filters that are being employed would have no hope of screening the population et al communications.

Selected transmissions are being targeted that have national security interests at stake...how much more clear can the need be????

quote:
When they came for the terrorists, I did not speak out;
I was not a terrorist.

"When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Martin Niemöll


So what you're saying there is that we should speak out against things that hurt the terrorists, we should out secret government programs that allow us to even hope to try and be a part of the many things that will allow us to defeat terrorism, we should make everything our country does public or less secure so a newspaper can make Bush look bad and get good ratings at the expense of national security?

Yeah, well, I think I'll go the other way on this...if in 200 years the US somehow starts turning into 1937/8 Berlin, at least hopefully we'll just have to fight our own government instead of them and the terrorists too. Of course, if the far left gets their way, we'll be a Socialist state anyways, so I guess we wouldn't even realize it anyways...

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By smitty3268 on 3/6/2007 5:53:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No 'way of life' was contradicted with the wiretapping.

I think you might feel differently if the feds busted down your door and searched your entire house from top to bottom, finding nothing and telling you they had no search warrant and were only doing it because they didn't like the color of your house.

Now, they may have had good reason to tap this guys phone, but since they didn't get a warrant we'll never know for sure.

quote:
The "press" in this country has gone from a system that pursues actual relevant news and reports it in an unbiased manner for the sake of news, to corporations that use the news to drive ratings.

Yes, this is extremely disappointing to me. To be fair, I think there are a lot of reporters who are still trying to go after the news, but the higher ups only care about ratings.

quote:
Until the irresponsible news organization that reported on it blabbed to the whole world "Look terrorists, we're doing this now too! Now you can even be more careful trying to kill us!"

How was it irresponsible? I assume you think they warned the terrorists... I hope to God they actually did, because if the terrorists are so incredibly stupid they didn't think we were trying to tap their phone calls then we have very little to worry about. No one that stupid could plan another sophisticated attack on us.

I have absolutely nothing against tapping phone conversations. But there is a reason warrants exist. The courts have even gone out of their way to make it easy for them to be gotten in case of national security, and still the administration refuses to get warrants. It just makes me wonder why...


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you might feel differently if the feds busted down your door and searched your entire house from top to bottom, finding nothing and telling you they had no search warrant and were only doing it because they didn't like the color of your house.


First, busting down my physical door and intruding into my physical space is much different than me communicating with someone and never knowing I was being looked at. They are not the same thing, as one ruins my day (and door), the other I don't even know about so I really don't care.

Secondly, the NSA isn't listening in on these communications because they have nothing better to do. Their listening in for a reason. So again it's not the same because the NSA does have better things to do with their time than listen to you plan the next fishing trip with your buddy. The people their listening to are going to have been ID'd as people either known or suspected of ties with terrorism. The filters setup to scan communications aren't going to be listening for "lake trout", "perch", and "walleye"...unless someone has set them to for a very good reason. Again, this is being sensationalized for nothing...you act as if the NSA has so many free resources and so much free time they just wiretap random people all day long...lets try and keep it real here.

quote:
How was it irresponsible? I assume you think they warned the terrorists... I hope to God they actually did, because if the terrorists are so incredibly stupid they didn't think we were trying to tap their phone calls then we have very little to worry about. No one that stupid could plan another sophisticated attack on us.


It's irresponsible because while everyone including the terrorists knows that the feds are tied into the communications grid, the freaking program was still classified! Why would any American be stupid enough to help the terrorists in any way? It's enough we give them Billions in oil revenue, why would we draw attention to a program that has been put in place to protect us and catch them? Why would anyone that had the foremost interests of protecting us (meaning, not the terrorists) ever expose a program like that???? It totally defies logic...unless the papers foremost interest wasn't national security, but rather something else....hmmm.....what could that have been???? Lets see....they sold lots of papers! The made Bush look bad! Well hey, those are outstanding reasons to draw attention to a secret government program...I mean, it's not as if the terrorists aren't already cautious, lets help them out some more...3,000 innocents wasn't enough, lets help them go bigger next time. I mean, it only takes your one stupid terrorist that and some explosive to kill a bunch of infidels...but hey, he's just a stupid terrorist, I'm sure he's not smart enough to push the button tied to the detonator. Just.....F'ing......Unreal.

quote:
I have absolutely nothing against tapping phone conversations. But there is a reason warrants exist. The courts have even gone out of their way to make it easy for them to be gotten in case of national security, and still the administration refuses to get warrants. It just makes me wonder why...


Then don't you think it would have been just a little more responsible for the paper to take it to the White House (which they did, and the President told them it'd harm national security, but apperantly the reasons weren't good enough for the editor and the writer, so they went ahead anyways), tell them they knew this was going on, and then say that rather than exposing a sensitive ongoing govenment operation that has been put in place to stop loss of innocent life (that's us), they were going to hand over what they had to the committee that supervises this stuff, so it could be talked about internally by both sides and in a secure manner?

That wouldn't have been a much more responible thing to do as Americans...you're saying it was much better to expose it to the world so everyone knew about it?

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/7/2007 12:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
First, I'm not a neo-conservative, as I have no problem with gays, I don't like religion involved anywhere near government, and I'm somewhat environmentally conscious.

However, I'm practical in that I realize there are brainwashed or just plain nutzoid people out there that want to kill me because I'm an American. That's it. No other reason.

Because of this, I really have no problem at all with Bush going after them, as - and this may sound insane to someone who considers logic "hyper paranoia" - I actually value my life more than the person trying to kill me and my neighbor.

To me it's very simple:

1. Terrorists want to kill us.
2. We have the federal government here to protect us - their #1 above all else job.
3. This federal government spends extremely large amounts of money each year in doing number two above.
4. Some of these things are secret, as you don't want the #1 guys to know what your really doing until it's too late...they may suspect, or have some idea, but the don't know and more importantly they don't really know specifics.
5. People in my own country that try and/or do undermine 2 and especially 4 (because if it's secret, it's most likely pretty important) are endangering me because it gives the guys in #1 a greater chance of success - you do realize when the guys in #1 succeed, that's bad for us right?
6. Because of #5, I am now less safe.

I mean really, it's that simple. If you cannot understand those 6 things, then there's really nothing left to talk about, you are way left and basically your existance and way of life is preserved due to the folks involved in 2 and 4...good thing they don't think like you.

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By smitty3268 on 3/6/2007 10:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're saying it was much better to expose it to the world so everyone knew about it?

I'm saying everyone already knew about it, so exposing it or not made no difference.

You still haven't explained why it was bad to expose this. You say it is because it was classified a secret program, when the whole point is that there is no reason for this to be a secret. Everyone already knew that the feds were tapping phones - exposing a secret wiretapping program does nothing except confirm what everyone already knew.

I can say that the color of the sky is classified, but if a newspaper printed that the sky was blue I wouldn't say they were helping the terrorists.

quote:
First, busting down my physical door and intruding into my physical space is much different ...

Practically yes. But the principle is exactly the same. If you don't care about that principle and only care about your personal convenience then you are correct. Luckily most Americans don't feel that way.

quote:
The people their listening to are going to have been ID'd as people either known or suspected of ties with terrorism.

I tend to agree - for now. My worry is that in 20-30 years this will no longer be controversial and the new practice will be to listen to everyone all the time. Once you do that it is merely a matter of time before the system is abused. The point is that we can't even know that's not happening now since the administration refused to get warrants.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/7/2007 12:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm saying everyone already knew about it, so exposing it or not made no difference.

You still haven't explained why it was bad to expose this. You say it is because it was classified a secret program, when the whole point is that there is no reason for this to be a secret. Everyone already knew that the feds were tapping phones - exposing a secret wiretapping program does nothing except confirm what everyone already knew.


Of course the terrorists know that we listen into comms all over the world...everyone knows that. But drawing attention to this program is the same as say someone trying to do a TV special in the 60's on our nuclear weapons layout, where our missle bases are located, how security there is setup, etc. Sure, the USSR knew that stuff, but why would one ever draw attention and provide any information on it? There are things the public/world does and does not need to know about what our government does to keep us safe. I don't exactly trust big or even small government most of the time, however, when it comes to national security, I make the exception and assume that what the pros are doing behind the scenes is the best job they can do with the money and time allocated. The article didn't even necessairly air anything damaging in itself, but the authors of it know being players in D.C. that it's going to stir everyone up, and it did. So what is the result of that? It now gives more heads up to our enemies (bad), it takes time away from actual important things for the head honchos to go before the House and the Senate to explain what's going on (bad), it erodes public confidence by casting negative connotations (bad), and to some extent you know it's not going to help the morale of the people working behind the scenes to keep us safe (bad).

quote:
Practically yes. But the principle is exactly the same. If you don't care about that principle and only care about your personal convenience then you are correct. Luckily most Americans don't feel that way.


I understand what you all are saying in that if you give them this inch now, they'll take a mile later...but what better alternative do we have? Yes we can back date approvals. However nowt after the fact the people - who are already going to be overworked - have to go back just to follow process just adds overhead for the sake of process (and I know all about this, as I work at a Corp. that does just this type of stuff). We can have them not wiretap until they get approval, which would be the best but that's going to be slow. This says nothing of going to get approval from people who have the law first at heart, and security second...where-as the people requesting approval want safety first and law second. In light of getting blown up, beheaded, gassed, nuked, poisoned, etc...I think I'll take my chances with the security guys. We can always repeal wiretapping, we cannot repeal being dead.

quote:
I tend to agree - for now. My worry is that in 20-30 years this will no longer be controversial and the new practice will be to listen to everyone all the time. Once you do that it is merely a matter of time before the system is abused. The point is that we can't even know that's not happening now since the administration refused to get warrants


I understand and agree, but my position is I'll err on the side of trusting the people who are working to protect us day in and day out rather than the newspapers, lefties, and judges. None of them have physical protection first and foremost in mind, and if you're not alive, you can't enjoy the liberties you do have...and despite the sensationalist spin that's been put on this, not one person was adversely affected by what happened. Not even the lawyer, as he communicated without ever being inconvenienced. It was only after the fact that he found out

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By smitty3268 on 3/7/2007 1:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
What I got from your response was that maybe the newspaper article itself wasn't bad but they knew it would stir up trouble which is why you didn't like it. To that, I can only reply that there is a very good reason it stirred up trouble. If your first priority is keeping the warrentless wiretaps in place I can see where you're coming from but I think that is being irresponsible and un-american. Maybe that's just because I'm a lefty, though. :)

quote:
In light of getting blown up, beheaded, gassed, nuked, poisoned, etc...I think I'll take my chances with the security guys.

You're actually more likely to be killed by a meteor than by a terrorist. (Or something like that - maybe it was winning the lottery) Given those odds, I tend to think people with your views are the ones who are overreacting and pissing away what makes America great for practically no gain. The whole point of "terror"ism is to spread fear and your arguments shows that it is working. :<


RE: Checks and Balances
By smitty3268 on 3/7/2007 1:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I'm implying there isn't a threat. Obviously there is a real danger out there, I just think that it can be fought using legal means and that the idea that we have to give up our freedoms to be safe is bogus.


RE: Checks and Balances
By rushfan2006 on 3/6/2007 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent post Dreddly....nail meet hammer.

I agree.


Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By hellokeith on 3/6/2007 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
"NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon."

Don't you love how the liberal-dominated media washes over the egregious actionsof Bill?




By Maharajamd on 3/6/2007 11:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
Hahaha...I remember hearing all that. Some huge facility beneath one of the Great Lakes. If you say any of the "keywords" your conversation would be recorded or some b.s...


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By rushfan2006 on 3/6/2007 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, well you got to love politics.

It's nothing but sides.....and everyone just tunes into their own side...its not about being fair or truthful. Words like "truth", "honesty", "fairness"...they are just staple buzzwords in politics.

I mean if you are a republican conservative chances are great you just listen to the republican conservatives, if you are a liberal democrat same thing -- you just listen to "your crowd". So the libs will say they are honest and fair, but the republican camp does the same -- in each side's eyss the other is full of crap and don't know their arse from their elbow.

The only way to be "balanced" is to be guided by your own personal concepts, morals, feelings of what is right or wrong - good or bad, just or unjust...and by all means NEVER get caught into the trap of becoming too ingrained to one side or the other...because then the brainwashing from that side follows.

Now that this was a political themed post my standard disclaimer must follow:

***NO MY HANDLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOST...IT REFERS TO THE CANADIAN BAND -- RUSH**


By AstroCreep on 3/6/2007 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Geddy Lee - Best Base Player Ever?! :p


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By THEiNTERNETS on 3/6/2007 12:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
So you're saying:

1) that makes it okay to crap on our constitution?

2) it's "liberal-dominated" of the media to report upon activities that infringe on our civil rights?

3) you can't get over your Clinton era hate because the last two votes you cast were for a C-student who does crap like this.

By the way, I wouldn't exactly call the Lewinsky scandal "washing over" of Bill's egregious actions--the media spearheaded the cause for the rightwing because if they hadn't made it into a mudslinging contest no one would have cared.

By the way, what's your SOURCE on that info? Oh, it's Newsmax.com?

"NewsMax Media is a news organization founded by journalist Christopher W. Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It runs the NewsMax.com website and publishes NewsMax Magazine. Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, describes NewsMax.com as "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective."

Thanks Wikipedia, nice unbiased info right there. And I won't bother picking through the other holes in your argument. Just keep deluding yourself into reading your "real news" man. Us "librels" will just keep making biased reporting, you know, like NPR and PBS.


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
NPR and PBS are seriously perhaps the most left leaning sources of public info around.

There is truly no possible way you could consider NPR nor PBS balanced, just like you can't consider Fox to be balanced either.

The difference though is that NPR (not sure about PBS) gets support from our tax dollars (and not $1000 a year, major money) and then still can't be balanced.

And why would you have issue with the news in America reporting that the President of the United States, who is married, is getting head from a young 19 year old intern in the Oval Office (meaning, he's on the job, at our expense) or whatever she was, and then lying about it?

That sounds sort of newsworthy to me...

Chuck


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By THEiNTERNETS on 3/6/2007 12:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
"NPR and PBS are seriously perhaps the most left leaning sources of public info around."

That's honestly the most ridiculous thing I've read all day... it's early in the day ;). How can you compare publicly-funded media to corporate-owned media? I mean that alone should clue you in...

Have you ever watched any Frontline reporting on Iraq? They are incredibly apt and fair in their examination of the situation. Their piece about private military contractors is incredibly poignant and interesting. The piece on the Taliban in Afghanistan is incredible.

Of course maybe you think in-depth investigative reporting is by its very nature liberal. But honestly, comparing PBS to Fox news is just crazy.


By threepac3 on 3/6/2007 12:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
I got to say I enjoy Frontline a lot. Its one of the best in-depth news reporting television series I have ever seen. I recommend it to anyone.


By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 1:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
I actually periodically listen to NPR every day or so, as I like to listen to how left a federally (in large part) funded station can be. PBS I gave up on a year or so ago, and I don't watch a ton of TV. I have seen parts of Frontline a time or two, and it didn't look too crazy to me, but then again, I don't watch every minute of it.

I compared a publically funded media which gets what I believe to be millions of dollars from the Fed. - which means that's my and the other 50% right leaning people in the US tax dollars going to them - and then the station cannot present a fair and balanced presentation to the public with that money. I don't care what that Corp. funded "news" outlets say, as their Corp. funded. As I said way above, their job anymore is to put little effort in fact and presenting a fair and balanced news report...their goal it to milk those ratings for all their worth. That's not NPR's job though...so that they are so left leaning, and then do so with my federal tax dollars, I take issue with that.

I do lean right, although I'm more left on some issues, and I can objectively say I'll take a Fox news report over an NPR news report anyday. I want reality presented to me as accurately as possible, and then I make my own decisions. I don't need NPR giving me their left only view because that's what they think it should be represented as.

Chuck


By threepac3 on 3/6/2007 12:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
PBS also receives money from American tax dollars. Though its combined with other sponsors such as: corporate, foundations, and individual sponsors.

For years though conservatives have been trying to strip away funding from the US Government.


By goz314 on 3/6/2007 3:27:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NPR and PBS are seriously perhaps the most left leaning sources of public info around.


Yeah, those rainbow flag waving liberals on Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and Mr. Rogers are real hellraisers. How dare they!


By evildorf on 3/6/2007 7:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
NPR and PBS both get some funding from CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, in NPR's case they receive approximately 1% of their total budget from CPB. The many stations that buy their programming usually get more than this from CPB...perhaps up to 15% of their budgets. CPB isn't a particularly large line item either, perhaps half a billion dollars per year which in terms of fed spending is a drop in the bucket.
Anyway, I think NPR/PBS worries more about where the rest of their money is coming from. Since their listener/viewer-ship majority is made up of lefties like myself, the idea that their reporting is skewed left is hardly surprising (though I'd argue they're closer to the middle and more accurate than most). Problem is that funding (from any source) always brings some strings attached whether overt or hidden. Closest we're ever going to get to unbiased info is looking at a lot of sources and knowing where their funding originates.


By isaacmacdonald on 3/7/2007 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NPR and PBS are seriously perhaps the most left leaning sources of public info around.


Disagree. PBS is far more "left" than NPR. I've seen a number of frontline episodes, for example, that give exactly one side of a politically charged topic (eg: the episode on minimum wage). In contrast, NPR seems fairly close to neutral to me. I never catch obvious one sided stories, etc.


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 12:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be a Democrat for a minute and give you the answers you want to hear without actually believing them myself but say it to make you happy and not offend you but then I might offend someone else so I'll later try to retract them and say you misinterpreted me.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) No.


RE: Clinton era spying - good ole slick Willy
By THEiNTERNETS on 3/6/2007 12:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I'm not registered democrat.

Second of all, don't censor yourself for me.

Third, don't assume you know what "I want to hear" because you don't anymore than I know what you want to hear. I'd prefer intelligent political discourse to someone talking down to me. You won't make me happy by "not offending me"--you'll make me happy by actually addressing what I said or (Oh Heavens!) actually making a counter-argument.

Thanks.


By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Should have read my other post for my counter argument.

Thank you.


Am I missing something?
By creathir on 3/6/2007 6:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
So some document just "shows up" in his hands, marked "top secret" that he has been wire tapped without a warrant. I HIGHLY doubt this. First of all, who is to say the warrant was not faxed to him, just the document about his wire tap?

Second, his phones are probably being tapped because he is communicating with organizations with links to terrorism.

My goodness people, have each of you forgotten about all 3000 people who died on September 11th? The threat is real. It has not been contrived and made up. There are people in this world who want to see freedom oppressed.

Wire tapping, with warrants from secret magistrates, is legal, and has been for 30 years. To assume as these newspapers do that something illegal is going on, when they have absolutely NO clearance to observe all documentation is absurd.

That is like reporting on the release of a new product, without receiving specs on what the product is. Assumptions and/or fabrications would have to be made in order to do this.

So go ahead, scream bloody murder about your rights... and how they are being trampled, even though YOUR rights have not been, and likely neither have the rights of those whom are being investigated.

PLEASE... get ALL the facts before you jump to conclusions as you all are...

- Creathir




RE: Am I missing something?
By Fritzr on 3/6/2007 10:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that there are people who want freedom ended ... unfortunately too many of them are employed as policymakers by, or as members of, the US Government.


RE: Am I missing something?
By chucky2 on 3/7/2007 12:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Socialism would end freedom....good thing we haven't got there...yet...


Get out the way
By comforteagle on 3/6/2007 5:14:04 PM , Rating: 1
I personally do not have any problems with the actions of my government in this scenario. They can spy on terrorists any way they want. I don't want to know how they did it, I really am not interested in why they did it, and most of all, I don't want some idiot who is also not supposed to know about it, find out, and then tell me and the whole world about it.

That said, I can certainly see how aspects of this scenario put many of you up in arms. I'm sure that I can't make you feel the same way about this as I do; however, I do attribute a certain amount of daftness to those who act as if their civil libterties are being stripped away from them right and left, and saying the government won't know when to stop. Who knows though, maybe my view is a little complacent and would lead to trouble if universally shared.

I still can't help but feel gratitude for people trying to uncover religious and terrorist groups secretly plotting to kill Americans, and I can't help but feel disdain for those making public secret investigations. This kind of stuff is not progress, and lefties love it.




RE: Get out the way
By Fritzr on 3/6/2007 9:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes our government is safe and reliable when given the authority to ignore the law of the land & the US Constitution.

Joseph McCarthey, US Senator
All that was needed to ruin anyone's career was for the senator to include you in his list of people suspected of not being a good American by the Senator's standards.

Richard M. Nixon, US President
In order to guarantee a win in the next election it was only necessary to do a little political espionage. That he forgot to get permission as required by US law was unimportant.

George W. Bush
When signing bills into law regularly adds notes to them stating that on the authority of the President, the President is not required to obey the laws that have been passed by Congress and approved by the President.

As far as the President not being a member of the military. Quite the opposite is true. The person holding the position of President of hte United States is also the highest ranking officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. Mr. Bush has used his rank of Commander in Chief as one of the reasons he is not required to follow instructions from Congress issued to the President.

US Senators & US Presidents take an oath of office that requires them NOT to violate any of the laws of the United States of America. Do you feel safer knowing that our political leaders are given the freedom to violate their oatho of office and the laws of the United States when they feel it is necessary & are able to do so without consulting anyone but themselves?

As for the Patriotic police agencies that safeguard the rights of Americans

Remember Ruby Ridge? The FBI deployed a sniper team and killed the suspect's wife & had plans to kill at least 2 more in that particular "investigation". The crime was "Failure to appear for a scheduled court hearing". The fact that the date given to the suspect by the Clerk of the Court & the date the trial was actually scheduled were different was not considered a defense. The suspect needed to be killed for his failure to appear on the date he was not told about.

How many more of these inceidents are buried in the FBI archives due to the "sensitive" information contained in the record?

There are requirements that law enforcement has to meet. These requirements are almost all based on a history of abuse of power.

The FBI, CIA, NSA and other US Intelligence Agencies are permitted to place wiretaps and ask permission afterward if the request is given to the court in a timeframe specified in the law. The law also provides for these requests to be kept secret.

The surveillance that is questioned is being done in VIOLATION of existing law, without court oversight, with enforcement of secrecy to prevent anyone but the agency wishing to use surveillance asking why. Of course it's ok since they just sent a request to themselves asking if it was okay to violate the law. After all they have a need & if they go through channels someone might say no.

Do you really want your cops deciding what they can or cannot do? I know from the experience here in my city & from the news reports nationally, that allowing the cops to decide if the cops are doing their job legally, generally results in situations that would be too farfetched for the author of 1984 to have included in his book.


Attornies and Saudi Charities
By Frazzle on 3/6/2007 2:26:25 PM , Rating: 1
Does anyone in here who happens to be calling a Saudi Arabian "charity" seriously think they aren't going to be wiretapped? How many Saudi charities were shut down in recent years after it was discovered they were little more than front groups in which to funnel funds for al Qaeda?

And how did this person manage to come into NSA phone tap logs in the first place? I'm more concerned about that than the fact that someone was eavesdropped on.




RE: Attornies and Saudi Charities
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 1
I read a book on Hamas a few months back that basically broke out the organization into the political, military, and social wings.

So the military wing is doing military operations against Israel, along with suicide bombings...and people in that area and around the world (including groups in the US) are giving to the social side of Hamas.

The only thing is, there's no real seperation there...it's just one organization, so money given to the social side of Hamas is used all over, including for military operations.

Chuck


Scary...
By JAlbatross on 3/6/2007 5:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Love your Country. Fear your Government.




By verndewd on 3/6/2007 9:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
The judicial system has become a joke,every organized crime faction uses it to blackmail the government anyway.Whats a little more.

Throw in big business and special interest,and the only laws that are upheld are against the ignorant and the poor.
Good for them with the wiretapping,I hope it prevents a noticeable amount of criminal activity.




By bobbybarber on 3/8/2007 7:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree that the NSA secret wiretapping program was used to spy on terrorists. I think that it was used to spy on ordinary citizens.

http://www.bobbybarber.com/




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki